0
dgermano

Argus Investigation - San Marcos

Recommended Posts

Quote

Because then skydivers would turn them on and could leave, say, Sunpath open to legal action from any resulting problems.



I'm somewhat confused here. If the argus is installed, and the ARGUS does't function properly in an emergency situation and shear the closing loop, then how would Sunpath be liable? For instance, let's look at two scenarios:

1. I jump with my argus activated. I have a collision in freefall and get knocked out. The argus fires at proper altitude but does not shear the loop totally. Result? I die.

2. I have my argus removed because sunpath issues an SB stating that I have to. I jump with NO AAD installed. I have a collision in freefall and get knocked out. Result? I die.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, Sunpath is not liable in either of these scenarios. In the first scenario, I would think Aviacom is liable. In the second scenario, I see it as one of the possible unfortunate things that can happen in this sport, but it CERTAINLY isn't the fault of Sunpath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, thats your interpretation. Ever hear of the term CYA or cover your ass? Thats what they (Sunpath) are doing, while your thought might be logical to us, lawyers don't give a shit.

Stop fighting it so much, like I asked you before is the chance to save your life not worth the $1,000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It DEFINITELY IS worth the $1000 for a last chance to save my life! That's EXACTLY why I paid $1000 for an AAD to begin with. It just so happened that I chose an argus instead of another brand. And it just so happens that argus has developed some issues that definitely has to be investigated. I am 100 percent in favor of that. Now, would you PLEASE look back over my posts and tell me where it looks like I am fighting this issue?? Just because I am asking questions to try to better enlighten myself of the situation does not mean I am fighting it. FYI I have NOT had my argus removed and I am NOT jumping it. As I said in my first post, I am just waiting it out for a little while to see if the problem is corrected BEFORE I make any drastic decision. I certainly welcome your input, but you do not have to be such a smart ass about the way you address someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I'm somewhat confused here. If the argus is installed, and the ARGUS does't function
>properly in an emergency situation and shear the closing loop, then how would
>Sunpath be liable?

Because when such a malfunction results in a fatality, the victim's family often sues everyone - the AAD manufacturer, the rig manufacturer, the main and reserve manufacturer, the DZO, the store that sold the deceased the rig, the rigger who packed it and the pilot of the airplane.

It's easy to say "well, it's clear that it was a problem with the Argus." But even within the industry it won't be clear. Aviacom will claim it's Sunpath; they've already claimed that the one fatality associated with potential cutter problems was a failure by the rig manufacturer, not them. Sunpath will claim it's not them and blame Aviacom for the faulty cutter and the jumper for not pulling to begin with.

Now try to make all that clear to a whuffo jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now try to make all that clear to a whuffo jury



I know of an instructor who spent $30k on legal fees trying to explain something to a jury. He was the 'shallow pockets' of the lawsuit, and the gear manufacturers were the 'deep pockets' and it's my understanding they spent quite a bit more then that defending their part of the suit.

In any case, all of them made an offer to settle the lawsuit at the outset, looking at their potential legal fees, and then offering a cash settlement of about 75% of that estimate. In this case, the plantiff declined the settlement, and ended up with nothing, but naming extra names on the suit certainly brought up the sum total of the settlement offer, so that's another reason to name everyone under the sun when bringing a suit.

The best way to avoid being named is not to be involved in any way. I wasn't named on the suit because I wasn't a part of the skydive in any way. For Sunpath, banning the Argus is the way they can be sure they won't be involved in an Argus based fatality. Beyond that, if the fatality was shown to be a result of a faulty cutter or cutter design, and other incidents had shown it might be a problem, and Sunpath did nothing, allowing the continued use of a possibly faulty AAD would certianly be an extra burden when it comes to defending the lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good explanation! Thank you very much for explaining this in a kind manner (unlike this ftp guy). Also, I want to thank davelepka for a very good followup with a real life situation. These types of posts are what REALLY helps enlighten people on issues being talked about here on DZ.com. I happen to be one of those jumpers that has already explained to my family that if some unfortunate thing ever happens, and I get killed on a skydive, it is nobody's fault but my own. No matter what the cause was, no one forced me to jump: not the AAD manufacturer; not the H/C manufacturer; not the canopy manufacturers; not the altimeter manufacturers; NO ONE but me. But, with that said, I also make safety the utmost priority on EVERY single skydive.

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Because when such a malfunction results in a fatality, the victim's family often sues everyone - the AAD manufacturer, the rig manufacturer, the main and reserve manufacturer, the DZO, the store that sold the deceased the rig, the rigger who packed it and the pilot of the airplane.

It's easy to say "well, it's clear that it was a problem with the Argus." But even within the industry it won't be clear. Aviacom will claim it's Sunpath; they've already claimed that the one fatality associated with potential cutter problems was a failure by the rig manufacturer, not them. Sunpath will claim it's not them and blame Aviacom for the faulty cutter and the jumper for not pulling to begin with.



I don't "get" this way of thinking. I mean... right now, if someone goes in (due to no pull) with Sunpath container on his back, without an AAD (because his Argus is in his locker, waiting for Sunpath/Aviacom "response") , then I think it's even more probable that H/C manufacturer will get sued, because it disallowed using a device that could save jumpers life (I would understand the ban, if Sunpath and others, made a requirement to use an AAD with their rigs). So far, Argus has saved more people than it killed (was there _any_ accident, where Argus was actually a cause of fatality ? ), so I guess, that the suing family, would have some point in such lawsuit. Whatever would H/C manufacturers do, they are still vulnerable to lawsuits. BTW, it would be quite interesting to know, how many jumpers removed, and how many replaced their Argus units, when all these service bulletins were released.


cheers,
Bart ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Very good explanation! Thank you very much for explaining this in a kind manner (unlike this ftp guy).



Sorry you took it so rough, this topic has been beat to death and quite frankly the people that oppose it (the "ban") are not seeing the big picture. Its politics, it's market control by other manufacturers, it's a conspiracy, it's unwarranted, the reasons go on and on. You're pissed because you feel you have a now worthless piece of elecronic equipment that was expensive. While that sucks for you and 1000's of other people, the fact of the matter is given the right circumstances that device can kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Enjoy

http://youtu.be/ohBxepGxIxc

Found this on youtube.......This is a cypres (according to facebook where I found the video).


Sorry to spoil your day, but Cypres worked fine in this video.
Check this thread for more info on the cause of container lockup:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2101957;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;


cheers,
Bart ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I mean... right now, if someone goes in (due to no pull) with Sunpath container on his
>back, without an AAD (because his Argus is in his locker, waiting for Sunpath/Aviacom
>"response") , then I think it's even more probable that H/C manufacturer will get sued,
>because it disallowed using a device that could save jumpers life (I would understand
>the ban, if Sunpath and others, made a requirement to use an AAD with their rigs.)

Well, you can only take that so far. If he goes in because he can't afford any AAD, the same thing could happen; doesn't mean you're going to see rig manufacturers providing free AAD's.

The problem here is that there is good evidence of a problem that has not yet been quantified, much less fixed. Compare these two cases:

1) A jumper does not pull any handles and goes in. The lawyer for Sunpath then has to make the case "he didn't open his parachute and he didn't bother installing an approved AAD. If you don't open your parachute you die." That's a pretty easy case to make (although not, of course, a sure thing.)

2) A jumper has an Argus misfire which jams his reserve closed. The prosecution then can make this argument - "Sunpath officially approved a faulty device to be used on this jump - a device that is known within the industry to have an unfixed deadly flaw - and as a result the parachute of the deceased was locked closed in a way that condemned him to death." That's a lot harder to defend against.

Sunpath has an obligation to its customers to give the best guidance it can on how to maintain its rigs. The Argus has a known problem. Is it serious enough to ground all Arguses? Maybe, maybe not. I can see why Sunpath might not want to take that chance though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I mean... right now, if someone goes in (due to no pull) with Sunpath container on his
>back, without an AAD (because his Argus is in his locker, waiting for Sunpath/Aviacom
>"response") , then I think it's even more probable that H/C manufacturer will get sued,
>because it disallowed using a device that could save jumpers life (I would understand
>the ban, if Sunpath and others, made a requirement to use an AAD with their rigs.)

Well, you can only take that so far. If he goes in because he can't afford any AAD, the same thing could happen; doesn't mean you're going to see rig manufacturers providing free AAD's.

The problem here is that there is good evidence of a problem that has not yet been quantified, much less fixed. Compare these two cases:

1) A jumper does not pull any handles and goes in. The lawyer for Sunpath then has to make the case "he didn't open his parachute and he didn't bother installing an approved AAD. If you don't open your parachute you die." That's a pretty easy case to make (although not, of course, a sure thing.)

2) A jumper has an Argus misfire which jams his reserve closed. The prosecution then can make this argument - "Sunpath officially approved a faulty device to be used on this jump - a device that is known within the industry to have an unfixed deadly flaw - and as a result the parachute of the deceased was locked closed in a way that condemned him to death." That's a lot harder to defend against.

Sunpath has an obligation to its customers to give the best guidance it can on how to maintain its rigs. The Argus has a known problem. Is it serious enough to ground all Arguses? Maybe, maybe not. I can see why Sunpath might not want to take that chance though.




A sunpath product will never jam shut with an Argus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, I say to you. Look back at all my posts on this issue and show me ONE sentence that insinuates I am pissed! I am asking questions to learn more about the issue. And I promise you it's not the money my friend. I could buy a hundred cypress's today if I so desired. I am just asking sensible questions to more enlighten myself on the issue. I see where you are a newly registered member here so maybe that explains why EVERY post you have made included at least one negative comment. Any helpful, civilized comments are still welcome from you but please stop being a smart ass about it. The one thing I've learned along life's way is being a smart ass WILL come back to bite you in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Very good explanation! Thank you very much for explaining this in a kind manner (unlike this ftp guy).



the fact of the matter is given the right circumstances that device can kill you.



name one product that is used in skydiving that given the right circumstances cannot kill you. Not really a very helpful reply.
I like my canopy...


...it lets me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

True, so a more apt incident might be a reserve over a stabilizer that causes a fatal plane crash.



from a premature firing?

all AAD units have fired prematurely, and for that reason i choose not to use one. Unfortunately for MANY they do not have that option, they are forced by legislation to use an AAD and that AAD could kill them as much as it could save thier lives.

If I am killed by gong in, then that is my fault, if I die because my AAD fired as I was climbing out then that i not my fault.

I beleive students and tandems should have to use them but everybody else should have the choice.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sunpath has an obligation to its customers to give the best guidance it can on how to maintain its rigs. The Argus has a known problem. Is it serious enough to ground all Arguses? Maybe, maybe not. I can see why Sunpath might not want to take that chance though.



Quote

Sunpath officially approved a faulty device to be used on this jump - a device that is known within the industry to have an unfixed deadly flaw



Sunpath has already done this. The RSL has known problems, some serious enough that they can lead to fatality, yet Sunpath makes it an alteration to remove it, requiring a Master Rigger.

The argument for RSL's is that they have saved far more people than they have killed.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Compare these two cases:

1) A jumper does not pull any handles and goes in. The lawyer for Sunpath then has to make the case "he didn't open his parachute and he didn't bother installing an approved AAD. If you don't open your parachute you die." That's a pretty easy case to make (although not, of course, a sure thing.)

2) A jumper has an Argus misfire which jams his reserve closed. The prosecution then can make this argument - "Sunpath officially approved a faulty device to be used on this jump - a device that is known within the industry to have an unfixed deadly flaw - and as a result the parachute of the deceased was locked closed in a way that condemned him to death." That's a lot harder to defend against.



Uhm... wouldn't a statement from manufacturer such as the one from Basik (in short - it's not our responsibility to check every AAD on the market; we can't guarantee any AAD will work fine in our container, and it's user decision about what AAD brand to put in their rig) cover H/C manufacturer from lawsuits such as in scenario 2 ?
Anyway, considering that probability of jamming the loop (or premature reserve fire, if Argus fired unnoticed in previous jump and jammed the loop) is so much lower (at least current real world data indicate that), than having a no pull situation, I must say, that I seriously hope, that you are wrong and these bans are not a way for H/C manufacturers, to cover their asses. If it is, in my eyes such companies would loose much of my respect and trust, as it would show, that they are more concerned about avoiding court problems, than jumpers safety :S


cheers,
Bart ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If I am killed by gong in, then that is my fault, if I die because my AAD fired as I was climbing out then that i not my fault.



My opinion is if I die jumping from an airplane, then it is MY fault. No one has forced me to hurl myself out of an airplane at 14,000 ft. This is just my take on it. I have even sat down with my family and went over this with them and explained that if such unfortunate thing should happen, do not blame or try to sue anyone else for it. I jumped, I was not pushed.

Now, concerning the AAD issue. I 100% agree that any one of the AAD's on the market can malfunction at anytime and in any way (fire prematurely, leave closing loop uncut, not fire at all, etc.) I am one of the unfortunate one's who chose to buy an argus, and while I whole heartedly believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed, I am still not 100% sure if a total ban was in order yet based on the findings concerning the steel ball. I'm not saying that it ISN'T warranted, I'm just not sure about it. However, I am not the expert on the matter and that is why I am more than willing to sit it out and wait for more results. Hopefully, it truly is about our safety and nothing else. At least that is what I tend to believe.

By the way, the first part of this post is nothing more than a respectful disagreement concerning the fault thing. That subject is certainly a good thought for conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Uhm... wouldn't a statement from manufacturer such as the one from Basik (in short -
>it's not our responsibility to check every AAD on the market; we can't guarantee any
>AAD will work fine in our container, and it's user decision about what AAD brand to put
>in their rig) cover H/C manufacturer from lawsuits such as in scenario 2 ?

Well, if a simple statement is sufficient to insulate a manufacturer from liability, surely a signed waiver would be a slam-dunk and would completely eliminate any possible lawsuit.

Unfortunately they don't. Every manufacturer out there says "we assume no responsibility for injuries or fatalities incurred from the use of this equipment" but they still get sued. Every DZ requires a waiver that absolves their gear/pilots/owners from liability- but all of them still get sued.

>I must say, that I seriously hope, that you are wrong and these bans are not a way for
>H/C manufacturers, to cover their asses.

Well, that is (of course) one of the reasons for it; it's part of the reality of running a business in the USA. Heck, the absurdly long waivers at most DZ's are there specifically to cover their asses - does that mean that you have no respect for any of them, since it shows they are more concerned about avoiding court problems than skydiver safety?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No. From a firing that did not cut completely through a closing loop on a previous jump, that finally breaks open during climbout.


Oh so that was an irrelevant analogy.

I do beleive that if the unit had fired it would be displayed on the screen on the pre flight of the rig.


And that would be complacency on the part of the jumper.

Much the same as a floating reserve handle, or a damaged loop could also put a reserve over the stabaliser.

If you are going to use an aad, then check the fucking thing before every jump for the sake of all of us! They can and do fail.

Every tandem I do, I look at the AAD and all the other components. It takes 20 seconds to check your gear.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manufacturers could also recognize that they sell both to the US and the rest of the world.

So they could have said that due to the US legal situation, and even more importantly, that due to the FAA requirements that an AAD installation not affect reserve operation, therefore they felt they must ban the Argus in their rigs.

But then the companies could also have said that everyone outside the US, can make their own mind up.

I really think that FAA rule spooked the companies, a rule which is much harder to claim applies in the case of premature AAD firings -- as in most other AAD issues over the years. It's that rule that made the Argus problem seem so much worse for rig manufacturers than other AAD's problems over the years.

Yet that FAA rule has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0